時間延宕教學策略對教導中度智能障礙學生連鎖工作之研究

Abstract

本研究比較時間延宕教學策略在教導連鎖工作時的學習成果及學習效率，採用單一受試研究法的交替處理設計，由國立林口啟智學校國中部三位中度智能障礙學生接受漸進時間延宕(PTD)和固定時間延宕(CTD)二種教學策略，學習二份餐前準備的連鎖工作，藉由其學習成果、學習效率、保留情形，比較時間延宕教學策略在教導中度智能障礙學生連鎖工作時的成效，其中並分析受試在反應時所出現的錯誤型態。 本研究結果得到如下結論： (一)二種時間延宕教學策略都能使受試產生學習效果，達到正向且滿意的結果。 (二)CTD比PTD產生較明顯的上升，且較早達到標準。 (三)二種時間延宕教學策略都能使受試維持表現達一週。 (四)PTD出現的型態錯誤、順序錯誤及期限錯誤比CTD多。 (五)錯誤型態以順序錯誤出現次數最多。 (六)二種時間延宕教學策略在給予提示前後的錯誤反應比例相近。 (七)二種時間延宕教學策略在給予提示前的錯誤反應比給予提示後多，且都出現低錯誤率的現象。The purpose of this study was to compare the effectiveness (numbers of correct anticipations) and efficiency (sessions, type of errors, minutes of instructional time, and nonwait versus wait errors to criterion) of two time-delay procedures in teaching chained tasks. The procedures were evaluated using the alternating treatment design. Three secondary-age students with moderate mental retardation in National Lin-Kou Special Education School for Mentally Retarded were taught two chained tasks before lunch. A different chained task was taught during each of two daily sessions, one task with constant time delay (CTD) and the other with progressive time delay (PTD). Maintenance of chained tasks were assessed. Also, the detailed error analysis were assessed. The results indicated that (a) both strategies were effective, and produced criterion-level responding in the instructional setting, (b) CTD procedure was more efficient than PTD. (c) both strategies produced criterion-level responding that maintained in 1-week follow-up probes. (d) PTD procedure produced more than CTD in terms of topographical, sequence, and duration errors. (e) error data indicated that sequence errors occur most frequently. (f) in terms of nonwait versus wait errors to criterion, both strategies had no significant difference. (g) the percent of nonwait errors was higher than the percent of wait errors.